Chaotic Results

[MonmouthGuy]

My guess is there have been enough bombs in Triple Crown races lately that no illogical horse is going off as long as it should.

[Rick B.]

jbelfior Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Didn\'t your sister-in-law shoot you in your office
> at Ewing Oil?

Yeah, after he got her pregnant but didn\'t give her the Belmont winner. Bastard.

[JR]

It\'s a little bit unbelievable that the readers on this board find this result so unbelievable considering the outcome of this year\'s derby. What was Animal Kingdom\'s best number before he won the derby? 3 1/2. And his best prior to that was a 7 on the turf. Ruler On Ice ran a 3 3/4 and prior to that a 6. His pattern isn\'t that different form AK\'s pattern going into the derby and is arguably stronger.

[Rick B.]

JR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To me the 2 1/4 forward move was significant
> enough for me to put him in the first position
> allowing for the possibility he\'d have another
> forward move. I didn\'t single him. I used him with
> 7 others...

Whoa. OK, that\'s a little different.

Kinda has me wondering, though -- do you REALLY need TG if you are only throwing out 4 horses? Wow.

[JR]

They still help.

[JR]

Does seem a little odd that you\'d be mocking my betting strategy when I won and I presume you didn\'t. Reminds me of the story about the guy in the casino chewing out his wife for losing $300 and she says, \"How can you be mad at me when I lost $300 and you lost $3000\" and he says, \"Because I know what the f--k I\'m doing.\"

[mjellish]

Isn\'t he by Roman Ruler out of a Saratoga Six mare?

You ask me, this was simply a surface thing.  No one was passing anyone over that greasy, sealed track.  

Only possible way I could see using ROI in the Belmont was if you thought

#1 track surface was so quirky that almost any speed would stick (possible, but at 1 1/2?)

#2 that the favorites would misfire (I think most here played the race that way) and even then you would have to be willing to go very deep to get there

#3 that the Breen barn was suddenly getting big numbers and something was up.  

Out of all those, I would say number #1 is hope at best, #2 is reasonable but like I said you would have to go very deep to get there and can\'t believe anyone would make ROI most likely winner, and #3 probably has some validity but difficult to prove.

You give me that race 100x and I never get to ROI.  No way.  Not at 1 1/2.  

When this stuff happens I chalk it up to surface, possible steam and move on.  Breen barn bares watching over next 30 days.

But that being said, I am glad you had it.  No sour milk here.  I am just glad that I got busted out of the Pick 4 early or this one is Da Tara all over again - and then some - because of my near miss on the Derby.  But I suppose you people are pretty sick of me lamenting already.

Still the best game on the planet.  

And I\'m almost over it...

Really

[JR]

I agree completely with #1. Speed ruled. This wasn\'t a true mile and a half test. Felt the same way about Conquistador Cielo\'s Belmont. But I do think ROI will prove himself to be a legitimate stakes horse and more than just a fluke.

[marcus]

Excellent discussion thread Joe and good comments by JB ,Mj and All . Personally I agree with Mj about scenario #1 +#2 as the most plausible - but that option #3  really kicks the randomness factor up about at least 10 points (approx out of hand \'guesti-mation ) imho .

Although in my own view , the randomness factor had seemed to be heading in a direction to more normalcy - or a more acceptable level the past couple years compared to that of the early \"00\'s \" - however ,  this triple crown season has been the toughest I\'ve seen . Though I\'m confident that breeding , whether a cyclical anomaly or not - has a large roll to play in how the early 3 yo season played out - and also me simply not picking enough winners  . ..

I\'m guessing we\'ll be looking at an entirely different looking ball game with 3 yo colts later in the year at the BC - and probably see some fillies coming over into open company  .

[jimbo66]

TGJB,

He specifically mentioned the Belmont itself.  Ruler on Ice was a big reach and I searched the board, JR posted nothing about the horse pre-race.  

Although I will say that Ruler on Ice was NOT as big of a reach as recommending to toss the 1st or 2nd best sprinter in the country out of the exotics in the True North.  Now, THAT was a reach.

[djr2000]

I think a better word for Belmont stakes day is   entropy   instead of chaos.  Entropy is defined as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system with a lack of order or predictability causing a gradual decline into disorder.  Especially when bleeping Maragh runs his horse into Animal Kingdom and costs me doubles, triples and supers with AK on top.

[Rick B.]

JR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Does seem a little odd that you\'d be mocking my
> betting strategy when I won and I presume you
> didn\'t.

1. You should never presume. My key horses ran 2nd and 3rd, and anybody here who has been to the track with me will tell you which bets I cashed on the Belmont, and why / how.

2. I wasn\'t mocking your betting strategy, per se.

I was mocking your first entry into this thread, where you said that the results of the Belmont were \"not a chaotic result at all\": if the race was so formful, why did you need to use 8 horses on top?

Your bets ratted you out, not me. The redboarding allegation stands. Throwing a bunch of shit against the wall hoping something will stick, then later claiming the winner was logical won\'t pass without comment here.

[JR]

Actually, in a race like this, throwing 8 against the wall and hoping one of them would stick wasn\'t a bad strategy after all. You just had to have the 3 as one of those 8. Again, I never claimed to have singled him. I just thought he had as good a chance as any.

[jimbo66]

If ti wasn\'t annoying, it would be funny.

The results were very predictable, that is why I went 8 deep on top in a 12 horse field......

I did notice Chuckles disappeared from the other board, perhaps he is back....

[JR]

I think it was that the results were not very predictable and that is why I went 8 deep in a 12 horse field. But you almost got it right.